Hi again, Working on it. I'll post updates when I have them. It may take a while due to my technical load, but I'll do my best.
Perhaps you have a FT-857 and an IC-735 around, to add to the test, as a comparison? From memory, both the AARL and Radioaficion said they phase noise of the three radios were pretty similar (I believe the AARL only referenced the 857, however).
Here's something I forgot to mention about the FT-891. There are 5 memory spaces for recording voice or CQ calls. Very useful, and quite simple to make use of. Not too many rigs at this price point have that (or rather, five). The 450D has one space, if memory serves. Does the IC-718 offer one, or as an upgrade? Alinco?
I do not want to offend. Long looked at FT-891 and chose FT-991. Accumulator consumption at FT-891 catastrophic for field conditions!!! And if you deliver big batteries, by means of the car, it is simpler to use FT-991. Radio FT-891 interesting, but power consumption very big. There is no mobility, and its compactness does not become necessary.
Not directly, but having some references is handy so I'll see what I can borrow when this gets set up. I have to first check out the ARRL lab procedure to make sure I am doing things in a consistent way.
Fair enough - if it's pretty similar to the 857, then, well, it is what it is. There isn't enough information to make that determination - yet. I'm not saying the sky is falling, I just drawing attention to a statement the ARRL made in their review that is alarming. More data would be useful, like a ranking with measurements so we hams can see what we're buying. The Sherwood rankings are useful on the rx side of things, but when 2 radios are within a dB or so of each other, it's not really relevant anymore. The Flex 6700 and K3S are 2 dB apart - in the real world they are both excellent performers and would probably be impossible to tell apart based on this performance characteristic. When you're comparing 2 radios that are 10-20 dB different in their close in dynamic range, like the Flex 6700 vs. the Kenwood TS-990, this is a significant difference that WOULD be very noticeable in crowded, contest band conditions. But if you use your radio to ragchew on 40/80, not so much a big deal. This same type of ranking would help understand where the 891 fits in - is it within a few dB of 10 other popular radios? Or is it way out on it's own? Likewise if you were to use the 891 mobile on a hamstick on 80M, this measurement is not all that relevant. But if you were to plan to use it at home with an amp on a full size antenna, it could pose a problem for local hams. How much if a problem - especially compared to other radios - is what I don't know.
I was on 20/40/80m doing all mode on everyone. Ants are as follows:891 was on a 40m windom ...other rig a ts-50 on a 80m and 20m dipole one of each. I was on the same band as him many times and ended up getting enough noise from HIM that I had to switch. When on the same band my tx hardly touched his noise floor..... I understand people want the stats but I feel like this is becoming more about yeasu bashing then any real conversation about "A" radio.... 73 David
For the record, I own an 857 and thinks its a fine radio - I have taken it to different countries on airplanes and operated there, used it mobile, etc. No Yaesu bashing going on with me. I like data. I like making data driven decisions. This is about one thing - tx phase noise, and the ARRL's alarming statement that it was the highest that they had ever seen. That's it. The radio looks nice, has a much better/useful screen than my 857, is priced very attractive - I am sure they will sell a bunch. I just want to know more about that statement, and what the ramifications are, as a concerned ham consumer. That's all.
I'll take this as some motivation to try and test one in a condition that simulates the "close neighbor" setup and then see what happens. I'm curious myself now. However, I can predict it will likely be sometime in August before this happens.
Hope your propagation is better than what we've got going on here. We're looking at short windows early and late, and rainy season, as well. Not a fun time.
The power consumption isn a bit more than the FT-857, at 5w, so other than from reading Yaesu's odd spec for this, I'm not sure where you came up with this post. It's no QRP radio, but it's not much different than other radios that aren't made specifically for QRP. It's in the ballpark. Here are the tested stats (and as mentioned in the OP, I have no idea why Yaesu claims 2 amps on recieve. It's 1 amp, at noise level. Their 2 amp spec is nowhere near reality, and only hurt their sales). http://radioaficion.com/news/yaesu-ft-891-review/ Tested at 13.5v: 19ma Device connected, and switched off 0.98 A Reception at low volume 1.02 A Reception very noisy 3.2A Send SSB, PTT pressed, without modulation 5A Send, CW, 14mhz, 5w 6A at 10w 7.8A at 20w 10A at 40w And a video test by someone else (not English, but makes sense):
Damn....now I'm considering selling my 817nd (which I swore never to do again)...thanks for the excellent review.
Yes, that's the one. Jim K9YC is extremely thorough and you can take that article to the bank, if you believe ARRL test data at all.
